■ Safety Duron Harmon, Rutgers, (third round, 91st overall): This one still remains a bit of a headscratcher because Harmon does appear a bit limited on film. He’ll be compared to the safeties taken in the fourth round — Duke Williams (105, Bills), Shamarko Thomas (111, Steelers), Phillip Thomas (119, Redskins) — for years to come. Thomas will be the most interesting case because the Steelers traded up to get him and needed a play-making safety. Harmon is a tough, smart, and physical safety. He shows best close to the line of scrimmage against the run and in coverage. With the Patriots hoping Tavon Wilson becomes a full-time starter at strong safety, Harmon fits the bill as a possible replacement for Wilson as the “money” position in the dime — the third safety who plays a hybrid role against tight ends and the run.

What if the draft gurus got it wrong?

Now I know we say they're wrong all the time & we say it's useless to put a grade on these guys anyway. But one way or another a team has to decide which player they like better than the others. Obviously the Patriots graded Harmon as a better fit for their team than those other guys.

So..... who's right?

Of course, anyone can chime in, but I'm really interested in what our draftkniks have to say & I'm looking at a team other than the Texans, because I want to keep this "kinda" neutral.

So you guys who do your own grades, what did you have on Harmon? Were you in-line with the Patriots or were you closer to the other "draft gurus" ?

I found this article. I read this & got to thinking....
What if the draft gurus got it wrong?

Now I know we say they're wrong all the time & we say it's useless to put a grade on these guys anyway. But one way or another a team has to decide which player they like better than the others. Obviously the Patriots graded Harmon as a better fit for their team than those other guys.

So..... who's right?

Of course, anyone can chime in, but I'm really interested in what our draftkniks have to say & I'm looking at a team other than the Texans, because I want to keep this "kinda" neutral.

So you guys who do your own grades, what did you have on Harmon? Were you in-line with the Patriots or were you closer to the other "draft gurus" ?

I'm far from a draft guru, but I don't even understand what you're asking. All teams take someone most consider a reach once in a while. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, but the Pats are far from the only team to do it.

I guess I'm saying what makes this guy worth singling out?

__________________
Being a D-bag and being factually correct are not in any way mutually exclusive!

Not sure where you are going but I did not have Harmon rated that high. I had him in 5th IIRC but here is my April Mock for Texans and I had my guy pegged in 5th but took him in 4th due to the need. Hawthorne was taken by Pitts in 5th but he will be playing CB at least initially. Also, some on MB had Hawthorne rated a high as second round.

4. S Terry Hawthorne 6' 195 4.4 this CB reminds me some of 3rd year KJ and could eventually start at corner but I project him to safety. He might be there in 5th but not taking any chances. I also like Robert Lester but his coverage is less than Hawthorne's.

__________________
I want to be able to recognize the difference between a "want" and a "need" and then I want to be satisfied with getting a need

See, I'm thinking the Patriots have their own scouts, people who evaluate college players. Their scouts study these kids, vette them, interview them... but as always, the media wants to say "they got it wrong" & I'd bet looking at Mayock, Kipper, & whoever, most people would think the same.

So you had Hawthorne in the 5th, was that because you thought there were two rounds of players (64ish) better? Or did you think there were other players that fit other team needs better?

Looking back, how do you explain the Patriots taking him in the third? Or do you forget about the last draft & not try to "understand" it?

See, I'm thinking the Patriots have their own scouts, people who evaluate college players. Their scouts study these kids, vette them, interview them... but as always, the media wants to say "they got it wrong" & I'd bet looking at Mayock, Kipper, & whoever, most people would think the same.

So you had Hawthorne in the 5th, was that because you thought there were two rounds of players (64ish) better? Or did you think there were other players that fit other team needs better?

Looking back, how do you explain the Patriots taking him in the third? Or do you forget about the last draft & not try to "understand" it?

Usually after a draft, I dump my notes and give minimal attention to other team players as my focus shifts to new college players. Unlike most mockers, I don't do a round by round mock of all 32 teams. I do evaluate several others who do. I evaluate my positioning based on my own viewing of players, other sources and then interacting which folks I have come to respect and trust over many years such as Beerlover and Rmartin65. I know how much my 3 Amigos teammates put into research and the countless hours we debate players all season long.

Mildly surprised Pats took Harmon but I view draft by others only as to how it pertains to Texans. I was more shocked by Dallas taking Travis Frederick in first round.
I would definitely say scouts are far and away better evaluators than those paid mockers in tv. Still even they get it wrong.

__________________
I want to be able to recognize the difference between a "want" and a "need" and then I want to be satisfied with getting a need

With the draft, there are so many different ways to look at it that it will drive you to drink... if you let it.

When you talk about professional draft gurus (not draft gurus that frequent this board), you're basically talking about guys whose job is to pour over tape and film on all these players, interview some scouts to get their feelings on things, and then put it all together into one big present for amateur consumption. They have to look at and grade hundreds and hundreds of players to be able to be mildly relevant.

And then they have to look at every team and try to figure out its strengths and weaknesses and what it's likely to do in FA.

And THEN they have to make a decision: do they create a mock draft based on where they think a guy WILL go or where they think a guy SHOULD go? Will a particular team draft BPA, BPA+Need, or purely by Need? IIRC, Gil Brandt creates several mocks based on different things and his last mock is where he thinks guys will go.

So.

On the other side (excluding amateurs), you have the actual 32 teams. Each team has a team of scouts that work particular areas of the country. They're told what to look for; they're given specific positions and specific criteria. They filter out good and bad and pass that up the food chain. The film on the potential candidates is then given to position coaches and coordinators who give their grades based on scheme and whatnot. And all of this is then whittled down to about 100 guys that are on their board, players that this team would like to have AND at what point they think it's worth it to go after them.

No two teams' boards are going to be the same. And they feed misinformation to the Professional Draft Gurus hoping to create smokescreens about which way they're going to go and to drive certain player's stocks higher and certain player's stocks lower so they can get the guys they want when they want them.

My point here is that I'm not that shocked when a guy doesn't get drafted where everyone's expecting him to get drafted. I'm not saying I'm not surprised when someone like Tyson Alualu goes a couple of rounds before I expected him to or when someone else drops right out of the draft but I expect that to happen to several players in every draft class. I get my information from the Professional Draft Gurus AND the amateur draft gurus, neither of which really have that clear of an insight into how all of these players are ranked by all the 32 teams.

I just like being able to know where these guys are ranked by the world at large prior to their being drafted. Then I like to see if they out perform expectations or underperform. But I don't expect those original rankings to be The Final Word.

This is why I don't like the concept of the "reach". If a team drafts a guy (like the Cowboys did with the Center in the first round) that most Draft Gurus don't have a good grade on, that doesn't mean that the Draft Gurus are right and that the Cowboys reached. That just means that the Draft Gurus didn't agree with the Cowboys on that pick. There may have been other teams that also had that high a grade on the guy. We'll never know.

It may be that the Cowboys themselves did such a good job of manipulating the press that they lowered the guy's stock.

See, I'm thinking the Patriots have their own scouts, people who evaluate college players. Their scouts study these kids, vette them, interview them... but as always, the media wants to say "they got it wrong" & I'd bet looking at Mayock, Kipper, & whoever, most people would think the same.

So you had Hawthorne in the 5th, was that because you thought there were two rounds of players (64ish) better? Or did you think there were other players that fit other team needs better?

Looking back, how do you explain the Patriots taking him in the third? Or do you forget about the last draft & not try to "understand" it?

There are a lot if different reasons for a guy being taken above others. We don't even have to look at the patriots. Look at dre hop in the first for us. There were several wr's still on board when we picked that had draft grades worthy of our pick.

We can't know for sure why we chose Hopkins. We liked him more. They may have felt he was safer, most ready, able to contribute right away...or they could have felt that he was just going to be a better player than the guys we could have taken. Maybe they felt like he fit our scheme the best.

And it might not all be based on what we think of our guy. They might see something in the guys we didn't take that completely put them off.

There are other factors as well like friends vouching for guys or having a connection to the player in some way.

I'm really stating the obvious though. It's impossible to pin down exactly why sometimes. And we won't know who is right or wrong until it all plays out.

This is why I don't like the concept of the "reach". If a team drafts a guy (like the Cowboys did with the Center in the first round) that most Draft Gurus don't have a good grade on, that doesn't mean that the Draft Gurus are right and that the Cowboys reached. That just means that the Draft Gurus didn't agree with the Cowboys on that pick. There may have been other teams that also had that high a grade on the guy. We'll never know.

It may be that the Cowboys themselves did such a good job of manipulating the press that they lowered the guy's stock.

You never know.

I agree, this "reach" stuff.... I don't get it.

I would think as an "expert" instead of coming across as being smarter than your favorite football team, I'd do a piece to try to "understand" the moves that were made.

Grade is where your scouts place him in relation the other players at his position and all draftable players.

Value is about gaming where the rest of the league might be inclined to draft a certain player.

So, you might have a 3rd/4th round grade on Richard Sherman, but the league values him as 7th/UDFA for whatever reasons. Or you might have 1st round grade on Aaron Hernandez, but most of the league has him off their boards.

So 5th round comes and you take Sherman. 4th round comes and you take AHern. Integrating grade & value for success.

Value is where the Cowboys were being criticized for Frederick.

As I recall, I think Twitter "knew" the Patriots liked Harmon. But for value, it appears they could have used a lower pick on him.

As I recall, I think Twitter "knew" the Patriots liked Harmon. But for value, it appears they could have used a lower pick on him.

Or at least we feel that way because of the way the draft fell.

For all we know Miami had an eye on Harmon & would have taken him with 93. Another thing we don't know (& the draft gurus don't know) is what is talked about on those phone calls teams make to one another when the team ahead is on the clock.

Maybe there was someone calling the Patriots about that spot or the Patriots caught wind that someone was looking to move up for Harmon.

We'll never know & throwing these what ifs isn't getting anywhere.

All I'm doing now, is asking the guys who follow the draft where they had Harmon in relationship to the other Safeties that were drafted after him. & how do they rank Harmon as a player compared to the 64 players that were taken between 91(where Harmon was picked) & 155 where the reporter is saying he should have went.

Anyone else who can tell me what they think of Harmon would be appreciated.

This had nothing to do with KJ (originally) but looking back on it the same thing was said about Kareem. Most people had Kareem ranked much lower than McCourty & Wilson. rmartin thought maybe Kj fit our "family" better. Then looking at where McCourtey is now (that's a Boston writer in the OP saying that Harmon may have been tagged to replace McCourtey) & where Wilson is now... KJ doesn't look to be as big a reach as what they said.

Same could be said about Duane Brown & Brian Cushing (to some extent).

This is why I don't like the concept of the "reach". If a team drafts a guy (like the Cowboys did with the Center in the first round) that most Draft Gurus don't have a good grade on, that doesn't mean that the Draft Gurus are right and that the Cowboys reached. That just means that the Draft Gurus didn't agree with the Cowboys on that pick. There may have been other teams that also had that high a grade on the guy. We'll never know.

It may be that the Cowboys themselves did such a good job of manipulating the press that they lowered the guy's stock.

You never know.

Most info I have says Dallas had Frederick rated #22 in second round and took him #31 after a trade. To me that is a reach. I am a little different than most when it comes to "reaches" in that I think if you want a player and you think he will be gone before your next pick; you go get him. Now an exception to what I just said is if you have a slightly lower rated player than your guy that would be there at your next pick, you make a determination at that point. An example would be Hawthorne that I mocked in 4th but thought he would be avail in 5th. My pick was a reach but I think he is worth it. Should be a very good CB and even better safety at a need position. Not arguing just giving info on my thought process.

__________________
I want to be able to recognize the difference between a "want" and a "need" and then I want to be satisfied with getting a need

OK, I will say off the bat that I'm not a draft expert. And, I've heard all the arguments about a player's draft position being the "right" one by definition, regardless of anything said beforehand. There's one other factor, though, and it's one that gives more credence to the whole reach/value idea:

Lots of teams (all teams?) use services to provide draft grades. Not all teams use the same services (but there are only a couple of common ones, as I understand), and all teams augment those grades with the reviews by their own scouts and such. But, there really are some "standard" ratings of players out there that teams are generally going to be aware of. So, while a team might move a player up or down in their own mind, they're going to have some general feeling about how that player is viewed by other teams, as well.

A reach or value pick is really just a matter of how that player was drafted relative to where they would have been drafted by another team. If you are the only team with a player rated highly, then it's still a reach to draft that player early, even if the player ends up being great. For example, drafting Tom Brady in Round 1 would have a major reach, even though it turned out to be where he would have been drafted, in retrospect.

So, given that there are some common "base" ratings for players (that teams will tend to move up/down, but starting from that point), I think that gives more basis for calling players reaches/values than people sometimes admit.

A reach or value pick is really just a matter of how that player was drafted relative to where they would have been drafted by another team. If you are the only team with a player rated highly, then it's still a reach to draft that player early, even if the player ends up being great.

The flaw in your argument is that no one but the other teams know where they have a guy rated. And that's why the concept of "reach" is inherently flawed. If I have a guy rated high and take him just before another team was going to take him, you'll never know that other team was going to take him and if we both were going to "reach", then it's technically not a reach.

Every team has a scheme specific and team specific ranking based on how they perceive their own needs, how they perceive players will fit, and how they project a player will perform in their own system. An overall ranking service is scheme and team independent.

So you might have a first round grade on a guy but if no team thinks that guy fits their scheme, their locker-room, or their needs, that guy is going to drop like a stone and that first round grade is irrelevant.

Most info I have says Dallas had Frederick rated #22 in second round and took him #31 after a trade. To me that is a reach. I am a little different than most when it comes to "reaches" in that I think if you want a player and you think he will be gone before your next pick; you go get him. Now an exception to what I just said is if you have a slightly lower rated player than your guy that would be there at your next pick, you make a determination at that point. An example would be Hawthorne that I mocked in 4th but thought he would be avail in 5th. My pick was a reach but I think he is worth it. Should be a very good CB and even better safety at a need position. Not arguing just giving info on my thought process.

We agree about reaches.

But when it comes to Frederick, I heard (on the sports talk radio up here in Dallas) the Cowboys had him rated at the beginning of the 2nd round. I assumed that meant in the 33-42 range not with the 54th pick. And if that's the case, their selection of him makes more sense.

So you might have a first round grade on a guy but if no team thinks that guy fits their scheme, their locker-room, or their needs, that guy is going to drop like a stone and that first round grade is irrelevant.

Another thing is need. Outsiders may have looked at the 2008-2009 Texans and listed center as a need. There were many here who thought center was a big need.

The Texans probably never saw the need at center to the same magnitude as the media. So while the media base their "mock drafts" on perceived need, trying to match the best players with teams most drastic need, it skews the whole "idea" of where a player "should" be drafted.

Now I know we say they're wrong all the time & we say it's useless to put a grade on these guys anyway. But one way or another a team has to decide which player they like better than the others. Obviously the Patriots graded Harmon as a better fit for their team than those other guys.

So..... who's right?

Of course, anyone can chime in, but I'm really interested in what our draftkniks have to say & I'm looking at a team other than the Texans, because I want to keep this "kinda" neutral.

So you guys who do your own grades, what did you have on Harmon? Were you in-line with the Patriots or were you closer to the other "draft gurus" ?

Rutgers players in general have been well coached up producing solid LB's & secondary personnel. I think the fact they're also in the Patriots back yard had some bearing & was a fairly well know commodity up in the north east. most of their recruits are undersized & depending on how they develop, in general terms play with high motors & fundamentally sound. Loved Khaseem Green, thought he was a steal in the 4th rd. (had him rated in 2nd) Steve Beauharnais another fine but smaller LB in 5th he went in the 7th also to the Patriots. Ryan Logan was a legit starting caliber CB could have crept into the first round if his times had been better, taken once again by Patriots in 3rd. Notice a trend? Duron was selected 8 picks later by New England. He wasn't graded that high maybe 6th or 7th round but he does remind me a bit of Glover Quin who Texans selected in the 4th rd. Good safety crop in 2013 draft & there was a bit of a run on them in the 3rd & Duron was the best fit on the board for their system so they addressed a pressing need. I think he will work out fine for them, however what is debatable is could they have waited & drafted a more highly graded player (TE's Dion Sims Michigan State & Levine Toilolo Stanford both were available). All in all a very average draft for them which is a good thing for rest of the league. I feel secure in saying the Texans gained ground on them this offseason. So to me the big thing is how the rookies fit into the system they're drafted, how quickly they adapt to the playbook & what opportunities present themselves. Patriots played a safe, but underwhelming haul as a group nothing of note so in my book they took a step backwards